
October 25, 2010
Quick Review of MS Office 2011 for Mac

October 11, 2010
New features of Windows Phone 7 : reviewed

September 29, 2010
Review of IE9 Beta Version
JAZZED UP: IE9, now available in beta test form, has a more minimalist look and promises to make websites load and run faster. - Microsoft Corp
August 17, 2010
Microsoft will launch more games on Windows Phone 7 platform for Xbox

August 16, 2010
Cheap mobile phones to gain high-powered operating systems

December 24, 2009
The best technologies of the decade
Windows 7 - New transform from slumpy Vista product or backward roadmap?
December 2, 2009
Critical Vulnerability in Microsoft Server Message Block (SMB)
* Windows Vista Service Pack 0, Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2
* Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 0, Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2
* Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems Service Pack 0 and Service Pack 2
* Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems, Service Pack 0 and Service Pack 2
* Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based, Service Pack 0 and Service Pack 2
September 16, 2009
Business War : Microsoft vs Linux
Microsoft is apparently teaching Best Buy employees that Windows 7 beats Linux in every category imaginable. At this point, everything looks fine. Microsoft is simply going to explain the pros of running Windows over Linux.
First we see, according to Microsoft, that Linux has poor support for cameras, iPods and MP3s. Really? Have they tried to compare with Linux Audio player such as Audacious, Banshee, BMP (Beep Media Player), Amarok. Read more Linux audio information. Click here.
Microsoft also claims that Linux user can’t use video chat on desktop Linux. Is it really true ? Linux can run Ekiga and Skype for video chat on Linux all the time. How about Windows Live ? Does Linux user really need that application ? I don’t know… :) Linux doesn’t offer free downloads? Hello !!… The actual operating system is a free download!
This is where Microsoft should have stopped. Linux does indeed offer a ton of updates, and they’re easy to download and install.
This is probably the most controversial part of all the slides. Microsoft has somehow managed to imply, without actually saying it, that Windows 7 is more secure than Linux.
April 2, 2009
IT Security Alert : Beware of "CONFICKER.C" Worm
The worm Conficker.C has been activated on 1st April 2009.
The worm when infects the PC will query about 30,000 websites for further instructions, thus when the PC queries 30,000 sites your Network most probably will be congested and users will be experiencing high latency in internet.
1. WHAT is the symptoms:
So far, the worm is new, there's no unique signature, but basically, look for these:
* task manager disabled
* regedit disabled
* user cannot view my network
* network is up, but microsoft sites and all antivirus sites cannot be open
2. HOW to avoid..
For Microsoft users, please follow link below
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms08-067.mspx
3.HOW to clean the worms
Refer to table below
Removal Instructions
Microsoft: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/962007
Kaspersky: http://support.kaspersky.com/faq/
BitDefender: http://www.bitdefender.com/VIRUS-1000462-en--Win32.Worm.Downadup.Gen.html
TrendMicro: http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp
To be able to access Anti-Virus vendors and SANS, Microsoft and others, from an infected Conficker.C machine, TrendMicro suggests to use "net stop dnscache" from the command line.
Sophos: http://www.sophos.com/support/knowledgebase/article/51416.html
Removal Tools
Microsoft MSRT: http://www.microsoft.com/security/malwareremove/default.mspx
F-Secure: ftp://ftp.f-secure.com/anti-virus/tools/beta/f-downadup.zip
AhnLab: http://global.ahnlab.com/global/file_removeal_down.jsp?filename=12371830475821&down_filename=v3conficker.zip
Symantec: http://www.symantec.com/business/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2009-011316-0247-99
McAfee: http://vil.nai.com/vil/stinger/
ESET: http://download.eset.com/special/EConfickerRemover.exe
BitDefender: http://www.bdtools.net/
Kaspersky: http://data2.kaspersky-labs.com:8080/special/KidoKiller_v3.3.3.zip
TrendMicro: https://securecloud.com/support/sysclean
Sophos: https://secure.sophos.com/products/free-tools/conficker-removal-tool-network/download (registration required)
Other Related Post About Conficker.C : ERM Blog
November 10, 2008
Windows 7 versus Linux : over the netbook market
You can be sure when Microsoft blitzes the world with a massive advertising campaign for Windows 7, they’ll be spending many millions promoting Windows 7 on netbooks. And given that marketing muscle, Linux most likely won’t stand a chance, regardless of which operating system is superior. (More reasons Windows 7 will kill Linux)
AND
Windows 7 features a much slicker interface than Windows XP, is easier to use, and Microsoft will spend many millions of dollars to push its use on netbooks. So when it’s released, expect Linux use on netbooks to drop. (One more reason Linux must fear Windows 7)
Both quotes mentioned above obviously biased to Windows 7. It sounds like Windows 7 is really confident to make bold claim that they're able to monopolize the worldwide netbook share. Are they able to make it happen or it is just a marketing strategy only. Microsoft exaggerating their strength. As we know Linux will continue to be a Linux... and no matter how much money Microsoft spends or what Windows 7 does. If we really drill down the term of Linux, it could be Suse, Ubuntu, Fedora, Redhat and etc community. Each Linux community progressively develop their own best product. Linux will not going away unless, one day the worldwide Linux community decides to disperse and stop developing and growing... and also shutdown all the Linux forum. Hmmmm... another mission impossible (MI-IV) for Microsoft. The possibility for them to stop is very... very... small and probably negligible.
November 4, 2008
The Forrester Wave NAC, Q3 2008 Report not totally reflect the real NAC competition
In Forrester’s 73-criteria evaluation of network access control (NAC) vendors, we found that Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Bradford Networks, and Juniper Networks lead the pack because of their strong enforcement and policy. Microsoft’s NAP technology is a relative newcomer, but has become the de facto standard and pushes NAC into its near-ubiquitous Windows Server customer base. Cisco’s and Juniper’s NAC solutions are anchored by mature, standalone appliances with top marks for manageability and ease of use. Bradford has pushed into the enterprise space with one of the most scalable overlay solutions. Symantec, McAfee, and StillSecure are all close behind with software-based solutions, which we predict will ultimately win as the best NAC architecture. Mirage Networks’ unique out-of-band system provides superior deployment flexibility and just edges out Nevis Networks, which operates as a secure inline switch with built-in threat prevention. HP ProCurve Networking rounds out the bunch with an approach that marries appliance with Ethernet switches.
I think Forrester forgot to include a few good product in their benchmarking evaluation such as InfoExpress, Consentry and Fortinet. To counter this report, I believe base on my previous experience evaluating NAC requirement, Cisco NAC and Microsoft NAC are not the answer for a comprehensive ubiquitous NAC solution. The way they deploy their NAC Architecture, would not solve major wireless architectural problem. These two devices depend on port base security. Meaning that, any traffic in-out activity from that NAC switch port can be analyzed and monitored only via that physical port. Imagine that if you have 1000 devices in your company. You have to replace all your conventional switches to this NAC switches. My estimation, you need to deploy about 42 NAC appliances to monitor and control every access in your network.
I would prefer a solution provided by Juniper, Bradford, InfoExpress and Consentry. These NAC able to solve many issues logged by WLAN architecture. Their solutions are more.. and more comprehensive for ubiquitous network.
To address many complicated issues in the NAC management of heterogeneous WLAN network, I would prefer solution from InfoExpress, Consentry and Bradford. The deployment architecture of these NAC are less dependent on proprietary configuration. Juniper solution too dependent on their JUAC that requires Odyssey Client. My concent is... the Odyssey client is too complicated to manage for non-IT literate (Non-IT savvy) user. I need to find a solution that could minimize the complexity on the end-user site when deploying NAC appliance. In order to make the Juniper NAC to perform well, every user must install Odyssey client on their devices (Laptop). Does all wifi enable device support odyssey client ? SmartPhone, PDA, PSP and many other wifi devices is not really workable with Odyssey. Can we install Odyssey Client on Windows Mobile Platform or Symbian or etc ?... These are the issues that we need to consider before we deploy NAC in our wireless environment.
So, which solution is less proprietary dependent and workable with many platform ? This time I would prefer a solution from InfoExpress, Consentry and Bradford. Two products were not evaluated in the Forrester report. How about Bradford ? since Forrester has discussed much about Bradford in their report, no point for to me to discuss about Bradford... then, I will highlight my review for InfoExpress and COnsentry. Generally, Consentry has similar features offered by Bradford. There are some minor differences which I think not really important to discuss. In general Consentry can act as a proxy radius to control the access for each user account. It also workable for inline deployment.
InfoExpress offers more unique solution compared to other NAC, especially for heterogeneous ubiquitous network. InfoExpress perform dynamic NAC solution which similarly follow the concept "Man in the middle attack". The total concept and approach they implement for dynamic NAC (DNAC) is very impressive. They are the first introducing DNAC solution and this method meet many end-user requirement especially to protect back-door attack via wireless connection.
The other NAC which include in Forrester report is more to AntiVirus NAC such as McAfee and Symantec. These type of NAC cannot be compare apple-to-apple with Juniper NAC, Cisco NAC or Microsoft NAC because they fall into different categories. AntiVirus NAC has different objection compared to port base NAC or the real network based NAC. If your look at the other NAC features, their can integrate with other third party antivirus server or appliance such as BigFix to update and control antivirus.
My conclusion, I don't understand why Forrester not include InfoExpress and Consentry in their evaluation report. That's why the Q3 2008 report produced by Forrester does not showing the actuall scenario about NAC technology available in the market. The evaluation criteria chosen to identify the market leader in NAC seems like biased to certain products only.
I would to see is there head-to-head evaluation between Cisco, Juniper, InfoExprees, COnsentry and Bradford in solving network access on real ubiquitous network.